A Bill Eases Vote Curb On Churches

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: June 8, 2004

Republicans in the House of Representatives have quietly introduced a measure to make it easier for churches to support political candidates, just days after the Bush campaign came under fire from liberal groups for inviting church members to distribute campaign information at their houses of worship.

Representative Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, added the measure to a much larger bill, introduced in the committee on Friday, that centers on revising certain corporate taxes. The provision, called Safe Harbor for Churches, would allow religious organizations a limited number of violations of the existing rules against political endorsements without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Although its chances of enactment are uncertain, Democrats and other critics of the proposal argue that its timing suggests that Republicans are trying to bend the tax rules in time to help the president's re-election campaign.

Last week, an effort by the campaign to enlist members of ''friendly congregations'' in distributing campaign information at their places of worship came to light in the form of a message e-mailed to some members of the clergy and other people in Pennsylvania, and legal experts warned that any implicit endorsement of one candidate over another could jeopardize a religious group's tax-exempt status.

''It looks suspicious,'' Daniel Maffei, communications director for the Democratic minority on the committee, said of Mr. Thomas's proposal.

The bill, now proceeding on a fast track, is scheduled to move from committee to presentation on the House floor next week. If passed in time for the election, Mr. Maffei said, it could invite ''widespread abuse'' by religious leaders using their positions to support favorite candidates.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the timing ''simply reeks to high heaven, literally.''

Representatives of Chairman Thomas and of the Ways and Means Committee's Republican majority did not respond to calls for comment, and Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said it had not yet taken a position on the bill.

But Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, called Mr. Lynn's view extreme.

''He would like to exclude people of faith from participating in America's civic life and participating in the political process,'' Mr. Schmidt said. ''That is just fundamentally wrong. The Bush campaign has an inclusive message. The campaign wants people of faith to participate in the political process.''

Conservative Christians have pressed for years to loosen the restrictions on political endorsements by religious groups, and Representative Walter B. Jones, Republican of North Carolina, has previously proposed legislation to that effect.

In an interview yesterday, Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said his denomination also supported efforts to lift the restrictions.

''We don't think that churches should be endorsing candidates,'' Dr. Land said, ''but that should be a decision made by the churches, not by the government.''

The Safe Harbor for Churches provision is less sweeping than previous proposals to change the rules. It would greatly reduce the tax penalties for either one or two deliberate political endorsements in a calendar year and would also allow a church to make as many as three ''unintentional'' political endorsements in a calendar year without penalty. It does not define ''unintentional.''

''Our impression is this means you get three sins with no penance,'' said Mr. Maffei, of the Ways and Means minority staff. ''That means you can take the last three Sundays before the election and pass out a voter card and still retain your tax status as a church.''

Still, earlier attempts to loosen the restrictions have all failed. Representative Thomas has said he believes that the bill before his committee will pass the House. But it also needs to be reconciled with a version, already passed by the Senate, that does not include the Safe Harbor provision.